Does it concern us that there are no evidence for the miracles of Jesus and hes ressurection?I mean those events were pretty big in that particular time of history so we whould assume that someone had to writte it down expect the gospels.But the only evidence we have for the miracles is in the Talmud where it attributes them as"sorcery".So does it concern us that we dont have such evidence?
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by the only evidence is in the Torah and listing them as sorcery?
A lot of things in history are not always known. But we can often see after affects. Such as we see lots of extra biblical Christian writings by people talking about the apostles and the messiah.
But ultimately it does not surprise me much. We live in a age where any joe can publish something or post it and it’s seen by Millions in days and digital preserved and able to be reposted and shared to millions more across the globe.
Go back a few thousands years and it seems like mostly just the wealthy was able to afford someone to write it down. Jesus and the apostles seemed to be around the poor and needy all the time. They would not have been able to fund someone to
But the materials and hand write it all down. The process to produce a first hand account 2,000 years ago was very hard and then the likelihood of some persons first hand account being hand copied down by others and survive 2,000 years is unlikely in my opinion. I may even be more suspicious if there was dozens and dozens and hundreds of accounts of things jesus did before the poor that made it until now.
What i mean is that only the Torah takes account of his miracles.And some historian whould have written something about it.I mean you have a proclaimed messiah who is doing miracles and all of a sudden his tomb is empty .Someone whould have wrote something about it
The Torah is a collection of scriptures prior to the coming of Jesus Christ and so the Rabbis never specifically wrote about Jesus himself as witnesses and then filed it in the Torah.
Perhaps yo are referring to some collections in the Talmud?
We do have accounts of what Jesus did. That’s how
We got the gospels and some epistles. 99.99% of all people alive in Jesus’s Christ’s day are not known. Most don’t even have a single word tied to their name that can be traced. Jesus has entire books. Almost everything Jesus did was confided to a small area and the majority who witnessed it was poor and needy people. It’s not far fetched for me to see that very few historians would have been there while it was occurring on a first hand basis and few would have carried about some Jewish group of a few dozen people.
Isnt the Torah a part of the Talmud?.If not yes thats what i meant.I dont consider small area the City Of Jerusalem.It was a big city actually.So in fact there whould be a lot historians there
Plus we dont have an account of the guards guarding the tomb to report to Pilat
Typically when someone is referring to the Torah it means the first 5 books of our Old Testament. The entire hebrew Bible is the Tanakh. The Talmuds are broken down into the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. There are all kinds of other breakdowns as well.
1 Like
Well, neither the Romans nor the Jewish leaders/scholars at the time would have wanted to validate the ministry and followers of Christ. They were concerned about maintaining their own power and authority. So I do not think that lack of extra biblical accounts attesting to Jesus’s miracles or resurrection should cause us to doubt the Biblical account. However, the fact that we see extra biblical accounts pointing to Jesus’s existence, acts of “sorcery” and death point to the historicity of the Bible. The Biblical account also gains trustworthiness in that it includes some embarrassing accounts, that would not be told unless they actually happened, such as the women being the first witnesses when their testimony was not admissible in a court of law at the time, or the disciples hiding in a locked room together after Jesus’s death. Other powerful evidence for the resurrection include the fact that the disciples, as first hand witnesses, were willing to die for their beliefs. They would not have been willing to suffer and die for a lie of their own creation.
4 Likes
Thanks for your answer mischelle. I truly appreciate it .
Yeah i can see that. But it kinda bothers me a little that not even one historian accounted these events. I mean yeah the scholars were roman and jewish and neither wanted these events to be written down as they might have shifted the public view . But Jerusalem was a big city so there would be a lot of historians/scholars that were not roman or Jewish. So i guess we havent found some accounts yet?
Why should there be contemporary evidence outside the NT? Especially from the time of Jesus’ ministry from about 25 AD until the death of Paul in the historically unconfirmed Christian persecution under Nero, at least to the end of the Jewish Apostolic era c. 100 AD. Christianity was subversive, which is how it transformed the Roman empire. The growth rate was 1.4 per decade for nearly 20 decades. A million by 200. But only 30,000 by 100 AD. And a million was only 2% of the empire’s population. It remained politically insignificant for another century from 200 AD. So, again, why would the Apostolic era, constituting 0.05% of the population, have been documented by Roman commentators?
3 Likes
Why wouldnt? I mean you have an entire city with rumors about a risen messiah.
What Roman commentator was living in Jerusalem? In the nether regions of the empire? Like the Roman city of York in northern England. There wouldn’t have even been diplomatic despatches on the matter, unlike Boadicea’s uprising. It was small beer business as usual that percolated through the Jews. A trivial tribal policing matter. No Roman official would have raised an eyebrow at any of it. Rumours of the resurrection would have elicited an ‘Oh dear, these superstitious peasants’ at most.
Well we have Josephus. He was an historian living at Jerusalem. Jewish but at least he would have written the “rumors” of the ressurection. Instead he only mentions the death of Christ
And im sure a lot of would have been there. Jerusalem was a big city. Not a multicultural capital of course but neither a small village/town like York
Aye it was a big alien city. No Roman historian lived there. The execution of a local man to keep the locals quiet was nothing. Claims of magic were nothing. ‘Uh huh’. The locals ran interference on the claims, as they were exposed, covered it up, conspired and believed what they said: His followers had stolen the body. Nothing to see here, move on. This is one of those situations where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Not true . The guards would have spoken against it. If rumors about the disciples stealing the body emerged the blame would shifted to the guards. They would have been executed
Just bribe or kill, bribery’s best. Why do you think the frontier occupying army could have cared less? Pilate had made a new friend. Anything else?
Unlikely for both of them.If i was a roman what kind of bribery would convince me to keep to myself what had i just seen?Killed i dont think so.Why would someone kill a pack of men (lets say at least two)that saw a light so bright and then suddenly the body gone.
Nobody saw anything.
“The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.”
They saw the angel soo…